Tuesday, November 8, 2011

To Love, Honor & Vacuum...unless he looks at teh Pr0n!

Dalrock is continuing his one man Jihad against frivolous divorce, and his latest action is to warn Men seeking wives to pay careful attention and not assume that just because a potential wife is a Christian, she would be less likely to divorce you in the future.

This issue is so important I’m asking my readers and other bloggers to do whatever they can to help spread the word and protect men and their future children. Any blogger who wishes to is free to repost this entry in part or its entirety on their own blog with a link back to this page. Literally millions of men are at risk here, and we can help them understand the reality they face.

Happy to help, D.

I'll excerpt and comment on the most salient points here, but you really should click over and read the whole thing.

One of the more dangerous assumptions I see men making is that if they marry a Christian woman they will be somehow shielded from the epidemic of divorce. I’ve stated in the past that most churches talk like Christ but act like Oprah on the issue of divorce.

For men looking for a church to attend, this would be a good measuring stick on whether or not any particular church would be worth your time and investment in joining. If you get the vague sense that sermons resemble the emotive, feel-good environment of the Oprah show or any other female coffee klatch type of show like the View, get thee to a different church!

In my post Promiscuity is good, so long as it is done on the woman’s terms I pointed out that there is no backing for the popular belief that the female preferred form of promiscuity (serial monogamy/ serial polyandry) is more moral than the male preferred form of promiscuity. I used the example of Christians arguing that the wife in Fireproof was justified in her attempt to swing from marriage to marriage:

This is similar to the argument by the Christian women that the wife in Fireproof wasn’t being whorish because she planned on divorcing her husband and marrying the other man she was after before having sex with him.

Sheila Gregoire is one of the Christian women I had in mind when I made that statement, and she noticed the post and defended her position:

"But I just want to clarify: I do believe that she had grounds for divorce because of his pornography addiction....

...And so in the movie Fireproof, she was in a relationship where divorce was permitted, and she was planning on divorcing, and planning on remarrying. Thus, I wouldn’t say that’s whorish. He’s the one who cheated."

Viewing teh Pr0n is now the exact same thing as cheating? Dalrock got it exactly right when notes:

The fundamental problem is that Christian women are being given get out of marriage free cards while Christian men are being told man up and marry these Christian women. This selective moral softness from Christians combines with our legal system which rewards women who commit divorce theft and creates millions of fatherless children. Your husband looked at porn? Dump him and find another man! Keep in mind this isn’t some corner case example I’ve made up. This is from the movie Christians profess shows their views on marriage.

Moreover, Sheila isn’t just another commenter on the internet, she is a respected author and speaker on the topic of marriage for Christian women. All men need to understand this; if your wife decides to divorce you for another man, there will be well respected Christians lining up to justify her decision and place all of the blame on you. If that means conflating viewing pornography with actual adultery, so be it. This is true even in cases where the wife was withholding sex in an effort to control the husband.

She even excuses the wife lining up the other man while still married!

I've visited Sheila's blog before, To Love, Honor & Vacuum, and I've also seen her comment at various blogs like Terri's and Alte's. I never found anything she commented on to be so objectionable...

...until now.

As Dalrock implores...spread the word.

On second thought, a thought just popped in my head. Sheila is a feminist....the worst kind. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

She appears to be "pro-marriage" but she's spreading marriage and family destroying memes amongst the very people who are supposed to be the last vanguard of the bedrock of Christian-based civilization.

Think I'm making an overblown charge?

Let's take the title of her blog - To Love, Honor & Vacuum.

On the surface it appears to be a call for Christian women to be better housewives. But exactly what is that title really imply? It's a distortion of the common Christian marriage vow a wife makes at the altar - Love, Honor and OBEY.

Whether it was deliberate or subconscious, I still think it's a subversive meme that aims at one of the Bible's direct, unambiguous tenets regarding the institution of marriage...wives, submit to your husbands.

Just as the newly married, "modern" Princess of England had the word's OBEY taken out of her Anglican Church vows -- just like her adulterous, scandalous, deceased mother-in-law did -- this "pro-marriage" Christian has replaced the vow of wifely obedience to her husband with a trivial domestic household chore using a modern appliance.

The problem is not Pro-marriage Christian women. It's pro-Divorce justifications couched in the veneer of pro-Marriage Christianity.

Watching my little brother go through this now... Wife sleeps with the neighbor and blames my bro for working long hours and neglecting her. (Yeah, housing, feeding and clothing her in this economy is neglect, I know.) Three kids (7, 4 and 2). AND the divorce is on when she gets caught. He tries therapy, forgiveness, the whole lot, but she wants court. Yeah, he's a beta, but the good kind - caring and responsible. And for that he gets flamed.

Awesome post. You just inspired me to call some hypocritical pastors of my acquaintance, and point them to your blog. Keep on writing, you are doing IMPORTANT work, out of proportion to whatever web hits you might be seeing, or income you might be realizing from Adsense ads.

In the case of the second commenter, logic dictates that (besides no alimony, no housing etc) if a woman divorces because "he worked too much", shall she not then be deprived of the fruits of his "too much" labor?

Divorce because he earns too much, and then get the benefits of him earning too much.

Want proof that women REFUSE to condemn the crimes of their fellow women? Download and read this 11 page letter that Peter Nolan wrote to the International Women's Club in Dublin, requesting them to CONDEMN the CRIMES that one of their MEMBERS, who is also Peter Nolan's ex-wife, was committing against him.

Notice how NONE OF THEM would support him and condemn his criminal ex-wife:

And young men? I really do suggest you read this letter and click through to the links. It is very clear the crimes that were committed and it is VERY clear that these crimes were presented to these women as well as to the government.

Reading this letter might save your life one day.

Passing this letter to a friend might save HIS life one day.

The point I am making in this letter to these 250 women is that they have had FOUR YEARS to denounce a criminal woman and instead they have supported her and hidden her crimes from those who are new in her life.

You, as a young men, have a right to know that the VAST MAJORITY of western women take the position they can commit crimes against you with impunity. If you do nothing to fight back? Such as join CAF and register to sit on our new juries? Please do not bother me any more with your whining and moaning.

For not only have WOMEN had FOUR YEARS to be prepared to denounce WOMEN who are criminals? SO HAVE MEN. And the MEN will not do this either.

Not Jennifers father, not her brother, not her sons, not my father, not my brothers, not my best man, not my best mate, not my sons, not my male cousins, not my uncles.

Quite frankly? I am FAR more disgusted in FATHERS than I am in women.

And you fathers here ought to know that.

I can have no respect for men who are not willing to write letters like this one. I have been doing this for FOUR YEARS and in my own name MORE THAN A YEAR. Yet so many other men cower at the idea of doing the same. And so many other men REFUSE to educate themselves.

I have given you men the remedy and you refuse to use it!

Rescind your consent to be governed!

Divorce your criminal government!

Stand up on your own hind legs and tell the government and the cops that you DO NOT CONSENT TO BE A SLAVE.

And if you do not do this?

Welcome to your slavery.

Please join Crimes Against Fathers

www.crimesagainstfathers.com

Please take the time to read a FREE short 100 page book called “Living Free in a Fem-Nazi World”. This book is about freeing you from the fem-nazi, fem-fascist state you live in to live your life as you choose. This book will show you how to no longer be subject to the fem-nazi ‘legislation’ that claims you are a slave with no rights at all.

After reading this short 100 page book, you will understand how to become completely legally free of the feminist legal system worldwide. That is, no woman will ever be able to persecute you or harm you through false DV charges, false rape accusations, feminist divorce courts, etc. In short, you will indeed be a free man in a world of feminism, free and safe from being harmed by feminism.

>>A bible scholar I have been speaking to pointed out to me that there is no marriage ceremony in the bible.

Here in Mexico, they have a thing called Free Union. It differs from shacking-up in that the couple and their family and neighbors truly view them as married. I call it private marriage, and I suspect that was the early Biblical marriage. When the couple with parental marriage announced they were married, well, they were married, period.

Then, the clergy decided to take control by announcing only they got to decide who could marry and who could not.

Then, much later the governments, always seeking more control of the people, decreed that only the government could permit you to marry.

Here in rural Mexico I am told half the couples are privately married.

What we have in the USA is sick and twisted. Much better private marriages.